Cargando…
Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma
Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group US
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7 |
_version_ | 1784754277591285760 |
---|---|
author | Chan, Emily McKenney, Jesse K. Hawley, Sarah Corrigan, Dillon Auman, Heidi Newcomb, Lisa F. Boyer, Hilary D. Carroll, Peter R. Cooperberg, Matthew R. Klein, Eric Fazli, Ladan Gleave, Martin E. Hurtado-Coll, Antonio Simko, Jeffry P. Nelson, Peter S. Thompson, Ian M. Tretiakova, Maria S. Troyer, Dean True, Lawrence D. Vakar-Lopez, Funda Lin, Daniel W. Brooks, James D. Feng, Ziding Nguyen, Jane K. |
author_facet | Chan, Emily McKenney, Jesse K. Hawley, Sarah Corrigan, Dillon Auman, Heidi Newcomb, Lisa F. Boyer, Hilary D. Carroll, Peter R. Cooperberg, Matthew R. Klein, Eric Fazli, Ladan Gleave, Martin E. Hurtado-Coll, Antonio Simko, Jeffry P. Nelson, Peter S. Thompson, Ian M. Tretiakova, Maria S. Troyer, Dean True, Lawrence D. Vakar-Lopez, Funda Lin, Daniel W. Brooks, James D. Feng, Ziding Nguyen, Jane K. |
author_sort | Chan, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for “large” vs “small” cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan–Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining “large” cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9314256 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93142562022-07-27 Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma Chan, Emily McKenney, Jesse K. Hawley, Sarah Corrigan, Dillon Auman, Heidi Newcomb, Lisa F. Boyer, Hilary D. Carroll, Peter R. Cooperberg, Matthew R. Klein, Eric Fazli, Ladan Gleave, Martin E. Hurtado-Coll, Antonio Simko, Jeffry P. Nelson, Peter S. Thompson, Ian M. Tretiakova, Maria S. Troyer, Dean True, Lawrence D. Vakar-Lopez, Funda Lin, Daniel W. Brooks, James D. Feng, Ziding Nguyen, Jane K. Mod Pathol Article Cribriform growth pattern is well-established as an adverse pathologic feature in prostate cancer. The literature suggests “large” cribriform glands associate with aggressive behavior; however, published studies use varying definitions for “large”. We aimed to identify an outcome-based quantitative cut-off for “large” vs “small” cribriform glands. We conducted an initial training phase using the tissue microarray based Canary retrospective radical prostatectomy cohort. Of 1287 patients analyzed, cribriform growth was observed in 307 (24%). Using Kaplan–Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival curves (RFS) that were stratified by cribriform gland size, we identified 0.25 mm as the optimal cutoff to identify more aggressive disease. In univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, size >0.25 mm was a significant predictor of worse RFS compared to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm, independent of pre-operative PSA, grade, stage and margin status (p < 0.001). In addition, two different subset analyses of low-intermediate risk cases (cases with Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 = 7; and cases with Gleason score = 3 + 4 = 7/4 + 3 = 7) likewise demonstrated patients with largest cribriform diameter >0.25 mm had a significantly lower RFS relative to patients with cribriform glands ≤0.25 mm (each subset p = 0.004). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in outcomes between patients with cribriform glands ≤ 0.25 mm and patients without cribriform glands. The >0.25 mm cut-off was validated as statistically significant in a separate 419 patient, completely embedded whole-section radical prostatectomy cohort by biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and disease specific death, even when cases with admixed Gleason pattern 5 carcinoma were excluded. In summary, our findings support reporting cribriform gland size and identify 0.25 mm as an optimal outcome-based quantitative measure for defining “large” cribriform glands. Moreover, cribriform glands >0.25 mm are associated with potential for metastatic disease independent of Gleason pattern 5 adenocarcinoma. Nature Publishing Group US 2022-02-10 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9314256/ /pubmed/35145197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Chan, Emily McKenney, Jesse K. Hawley, Sarah Corrigan, Dillon Auman, Heidi Newcomb, Lisa F. Boyer, Hilary D. Carroll, Peter R. Cooperberg, Matthew R. Klein, Eric Fazli, Ladan Gleave, Martin E. Hurtado-Coll, Antonio Simko, Jeffry P. Nelson, Peter S. Thompson, Ian M. Tretiakova, Maria S. Troyer, Dean True, Lawrence D. Vakar-Lopez, Funda Lin, Daniel W. Brooks, James D. Feng, Ziding Nguyen, Jane K. Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title | Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title_full | Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title_fullStr | Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title_short | Analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
title_sort | analysis of separate training and validation radical prostatectomy cohorts identifies 0.25 mm diameter as an optimal definition for “large” cribriform prostatic adenocarcinoma |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35145197 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-022-01009-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chanemily analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT mckenneyjessek analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT hawleysarah analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT corrigandillon analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT aumanheidi analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT newcomblisaf analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT boyerhilaryd analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT carrollpeterr analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT cooperbergmatthewr analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT kleineric analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT fazliladan analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT gleavemartine analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT hurtadocollantonio analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT simkojeffryp analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT nelsonpeters analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT thompsonianm analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT tretiakovamarias analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT troyerdean analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT truelawrenced analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT vakarlopezfunda analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT lindanielw analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT brooksjamesd analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT fengziding analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma AT nguyenjanek analysisofseparatetrainingandvalidationradicalprostatectomycohortsidentifies025mmdiameterasanoptimaldefinitionforlargecribriformprostaticadenocarcinoma |